Melvin Navarro Morgan appealed his sentence following a bench trial in the Western District of Missouri where he was found guilty of drug and firearm offenses. His appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, submitting a brief under the framework established in Anders v. California. This procedural mechanism requires counsel to demonstrate that the appeal is wholly frivolous before they can be relieved of their duty. Morgan simultaneously filed a motion requesting the appointment of new counsel to pursue the appeal.
The court addressed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence first. Applying the abuse of discretion standard, the court concluded that the district court did not impose a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. The court cited United States v. Feemster and United States v. McCauley to support this standard of review. Next, the court addressed the Anders brief. In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, the judges independently reviewed the entire record to ensure no non-frivolous issues were overlooked. After this independent review, the court found no arguable issues to support the appeal. Because the court found the appeal to be without merit, the request for new counsel was denied.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, meaning Morgan's sentence stands. The practical result is that the appointed counsel is officially permitted to withdraw from the case, and Morgan is not entitled to new counsel for this appeal. The case is closed at the appellate level with no further review of the sentence's merits.